I have some doubts about portraits, I'm not sure if these are technical questions about lenses or about my skills as a photographer.

I recently purchased the canon 100mmL 2.8 macro lens and I am loving it, also for portraits. It is very sharp, also wide open. The thing is that even at 2.8, I often have problems having everything I want on focus, in the example I attach one eye is not perfectly focused. I have previously used the 50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.0 and would often avoid using them wide open for that reason.

I guess the questions are: ¿What advantages do you find in lenses such as the canon 85mm 1.2L or even the sigma 1.4 over the canon 100 2.8 for portraits? I can understand it may be easier with those to blur the background or they may have nicer bokeh, but do you use them wide open for portraits?

I have both lenses and I use them both regularly, but the 85 1.2L II is my preferred portrait lens. It is very challenging to use wide open, because of the very shallow DOF. But that is where you get the results you can´t get with any other lens. You really have to think what you want in focus and move yourself or your object to make sure you get it. To get a pair of eyes in focus requires that they are totally parallel to the focus plane. You can get get some really exceptional images with it and it gives the most beautiful bokeh I know.

But if you want the whole face, from nose tip to ear, to be in focus, you need to stop it down and then it, in my view, looses its magic and there are other lens alternatives that are easier to work with.

It may be that you should check the micro adjustment for your 100 f2.8L. It does not have to be much off to give you the problem you are describing.

IME pretty much any good lens works fine in stopped-down studio situations with controlled backdrop and lighting. I prefer the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II for its excellent IQ and IS. 100L works just fine, too.

For pretty much any other portrait needs, I far prefer the 85L which I like to shoot at f/1.6 to 1.8 range most of the time. Below at f/1.6.

I have some doubts about portraits, I'm not sure if these are technical questions about lenses or about my skills as a photographer.

I recently purchased the canon 100mmL 2.8 macro lens and I am loving it, also for portraits. It is very sharp, also wide open. The thing is that even at 2.8, I often have problems having everything I want on focus, in the example I attach one eye is not perfectly focused. I have previously used the 50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.0 and would often avoid using them wide open for that reason.

I guess the questions are: ¿What advantages do you find in lenses such as the canon 85mm 1.2L or even the sigma 1.4 over the canon 100 2.8 for portraits? I can understand it may be easier with those to blur the background or they may have nicer bokeh, but do you use them wide open for portraits?

Thanks!

You might be too close to your subject which is shrinking your depth of field and so if it is a side shot, then one eye will be in focus, the other won't at f/2.8. At f/1.2 and Minimum focusing distance, at a side shot, the front eyelash might be in focus and the back eye lash won't be. With really wide open primes like that, you really should have a body that has auto focus micro adjustment and even that can be hit or miss. And the really shallow depth of field photos can look incredibly nice and f/2.8 won't give you that.

I had the 100L and it was my favorite lens for a year and I really regret having sold it, but for portraits, both the 135L and the 85L have difficult to describe why... but they are noticeably better and more pleasing than the 100L. Why is a super model hotter than a normal model... it's hard to put your hands on (fake boob joke), but they just are.

I'd be leaning toward the 100mmL Macro for *two important reasons. The first is it has much quicker AF than the 85 f/1.4 and the second is the reality of the IS advantage. The best portraits will usually have elements of spontaneity and the 85 with its glacially slow AF may work against you. Technically successful 85 f/1.2 portraits shot at the bigger apertures are often pretty static...though when it all works perfectly it does deliver a great look.

WickedWombat who used to post here a lot (he's probably getting a lot of work) would have weighed in here and advocated at least considering the Sigma 85 f/1.8. From all accounts it's a fantastic value lens.

Personally, I'll be selling my 135 f/2 and my old 100 EF f/2.8 macro and replacing both with a 100mm L f/2.8 macro. IS and fast AF are important to my shooting style. I had an 85 f/1.4II for a short while but it's limitations just didn't work with my portrait shooting style which is fluid, dynamic and with moments of spontaneity that frequently deliver the "money shot".

edit: *make that three important reasons...you can put a collar on the 100 L 2.8 Macro.

I use the 100L for head shots and head and shoulders when I'm using lights, stopped down to f11 and the 85L for full body natural light portraits, usually at between f1.6 and f2.2. They're completely different lenses for completely different jobs. The 85L is crap anywhere near it minimum focus distance, it's soft as, but for full body it's sharp as from 1.2. The 100L is sharp up close and doesn't really throw the background out of focus enough for full body natural light shots.